What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Here comes the zero-sum game again

Two recent stories highlight the fact that the homosexual rights movement is and always has been a zero-sum game. To the extent that the movement achieves its goals, moral traditionalists lose. There is not a compromise point where moral traditionalists can keep some reasonable ability to hold their beliefs and live according to them but where homosexual rights activists also achieve their goals.

The first story is from Robert P. George and Breitbart. Chase Bank has put on its "voluntary" (cough cough) employee survey a question that asks employees to check "any of the following that apply to you," and one of the options is to identify themselves as "an LGBT ally." So if they don't check that one, then they are saying that they don't identify themselves as such an ally. Contrary to initial reports from the bank, employees state categorically that the survey is not anonymous; their employee ID number goes on it. So those who miss that opportunity to identify themselves as "LGBT allies" will be able to be identified by their employer.

It was mildly interesting to me that the first talking-point the left tried on this one was bald denial. With no evidence whatsoever, they implied that Professor George or his informant(s) were making the whole thing up out of whole cloth, that no such question had ever been asked on a survey at Chase Bank. Then Breitbart got hold of what purports to be an actual photo of the question! I don't know what the new talking-point is, but I'll make some predictions:

1) A few on the left will continue to deny the whole thing, claiming or insinuating that Breitbart is putting forward a forgery.
2) Others will shift to saying that the employees are lying when they say that the survey was not anonymous. They will also imply that the employees are lying about the pressure they are under to fill it out. It's voluntary, darn it, voluntary. So shut up!
3) And finally, I predict that some will simply say that, after all, if you aren't willing to identify yourself as an "ally" of the homosexual and transgender movements, you're a bigot and deserve to be punished anyway.

Nor are these mutually exclusive. I expect some on the left to move from one to the other.

The second story comes from a Massachusetts Christian college, Gordon College, which lost its contract to run a museum and theater productions at the Salem, MA, town hall. The "offense" for which the contract was terminated was the signature by Gordon College's President, D. Michael Lindsay, on a letter from various Christian colleges asking Obama to exempt Christian institutions from a projected executive order which would block federal money from going to colleges that "discriminate" on the basis of homosexual "orientation." Let us be clear here: In legal discourse, that phrase also means that discrimination on the basis of homosexual acts is prohibited.

Why do I say that this is a zero-sum game? Here's why: The goal of the homosexual and transgender rights movement is to make it a civil right not to be discriminated against on the basis of full, open, identification of oneself as homosexual or transgender. It should be a civil right to live according to that self-identification and be protected from negative social consequences, at least in any economic interaction such as hiring, admission to a school, and so forth. That is only one of their goals, actually, but it definitely is a goal. Such a self-identification is to be treated in society and in law as similar to a racial self-identification. Any negative social opinions or actions on the basis of such an identification are to be treated as vile bigotry and punished both formally and informally accordingly.

It ought to be easy to see that moral traditionalists must lose, and lose big-time, if that goal is achieved. By now, one would hope that that would be evident, but for some it isn't. Some hoped, twenty years ago or so, that they could make a compromise by way of the "act-orientation" distinction. The idea was that Christians and Christian institutions could still prohibit their employees and representatives from engaging in homosexual acts but that we would all go about saying that it is always wrong to discriminate on the basis merely of the "orientation" to such acts. Now, bluntly put, it isn't always wrong to discriminate merely on the basis of sexual orientation. Plenty of examples could be given. But aside from that, such a compromise was never, never, never going to be accepted by the left. The left utterly despises and rejects the act/orientation distinction. They view open, active, and proud homosexuality as a category of personal identity worthy of the full protection of civil rights law, and that is the goal of their movement.

It's interesting to see that President Lindsay may still be hoping to get some sort of credit for compassion or what-not from the act-orientation distinction. Here is his statement:

"Be assured that nothing has changed in our position regarding admission or employment," he said. "We have never barred categories of individuals from our campus and have no intention to do so now. … As long as a student, a faculty member, or a staff member supports and lives by our community covenant documents, they are welcome to study or work at Gordon."

The implication is that homosexual students are not blocked as a "category" as long as they agree to live according to "community covenant documents," which presumably prohibit their engaging in sexual acts outside of marriage.

But that didn't work, did it? In fact, the college might as well have faced long ago the myriad problems with "not blocking" such a "category"--viz. What's the point of having separate sleeping arrangements for men and women at your college if you are going to put men and women with homosexual orientations into those sleeping arrangements with others of the same sex? Doesn't that kind of remove a whole lot of the point, such as privacy, from gender-divided living arrangements?

And then there's the elephant in the room of transgender rights. It may seem a little obvious, but since that "T" was slipped into the alphabet soup of perversions we are supposed to accept, it keeps getting overlooked: What in the world would it even mean to distinguish act and orientation when we are talking about someone who self-identifies as transgender? The whole point of being transgender is that one acts in a certain set of ways! One presents oneself and dresses as a member of the opposite sex (or one claims to have no gender), and one demands that others refer to one in that fashion, or even by some bizarre, made-up pronoun if one wishes to say that one has "no gender." Being transgender is all about social self-presentation and behavior. Those behaviors may or may not include sexual acts, but if Gordon's student and faculty covenant doesn't cover a man's dressing up as a woman, saying he's a woman, even having surgery, and demanding to be referred to as "Diane," perhaps the covenant needs to be updated. A sad necessity, but don't put it past the "trans community" to work up a test case! "I'm not violating the covenant. It doesn't say anything about this. And by the way, next week I'm getting married to a man, now that I'm a woman, and that doesn't violate anything mentioned in the covenant, either."

As for religious exemptions, given the analogy to race, why should religious institutions receive an exemption? Again, if the idea is that the opinions of moral traditionalists are bigotry and that acting on them is acting on bigotry, there is no particular reason why religious exemptions to laws against such allegedly bigoted behavior should be permitted. One could take a more strongly libertarian line and hold that people should be allowed to act like bigots if they want to, but that position is no part of the homosexual and transgender rights agenda, nor for that matter is it one of the premises of the civil rights movement on which the homosexual activists are basing their efforts.

The Chase Bank survey shows, too, that even your private opinions that dissent from the reigning orthodoxy will be hounded out into the open so that you can be penalized. One of the employees who reported the survey put it well:

With the way things are going and the fact that LGBT rights are being viewed as pretty much tantamount to the civil rights movement of the mid ‘50s to late ‘60s, not selecting that option is essentially saying, "I’m not an ally of civil rights," which is a vague way to say, "I’m a bigot." The worry among many of us is that those who didn’t select that poorly placed, irrelevant option will be placed on the ‘you can fire these people first’ list.

Exactly. No live and let live is possible. Suppose that A thinks that B is a pervert and B thinks that A is a bigot for thinking that B is a pervert. One of these perspectives is going to be controlling in various social interactions, and to the extent that it is, the person on the other side is going to be disfavored. If A is permitted to act upon his opinion that B is a pervert, it is entirely predictable that B will sometimes not get jobs, positions, or other favorable outcomes that he might want. If B (and those who agree with B) have the power and permission to act upon the opinion that A is a bigot for thinking that B is a pervert, then the same will follow, mutatis mutandis--A will be disfavored when his "bigotry" is discovered.

I would like to suggest to my Christian and other moral traditionalist friends that you stop right now saying, "I want LGBT people to have jobs" or "I am opposed to discrimination against homosexual people." Just stop. Even if you believe (I think, wrongly) that there are no situations in which pure "orientation" can legitimately have a negative impact upon hiring, admissions, or other decisions, and even if by "homosexual people" you mean merely to refer to orientation aside from acts, such statements are bound to be misunderstood. By saying such things, you also encourage in yourself the vain hope that you have found a place of compromise from which you can appear compassionate and reasonable to the left while not compromising your principles. You haven't, and you can't. Such statements may also create confusion about homosexual rights laws that prohibit "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." Such statements also ignore the entire web of issues that arise from the transgender movement. Do you really mean that you think a biological male should be able to get a job while demanding that everyone else play along with the pretense that he is a woman? Do you really mean that you are opposed to any "discrimination" on the basis of his making such demands?

This is a zero-sum game. There is a "them" and there is an "us." If they win, we lose. Getting that clear may be a grim realization, and it may lead to other, further, grim realizations. But one of the first necessities in a war, including a culture war, is clarity of mind. We conservatives need such clarity, now more than ever.

Comments (81)

I got a question: is protection for sexual orientation currently written into the Civil Rights law? Or is this acceptance of it sort of flying under the color of a civil rights issue?

Good question. The goal is to get it officially written into Civil Rights Law at the federal level. That is what ENDA is all about. The reality is that ENDA hasn't passed quite yet (rather surprisingly), and that the Supreme Court hasn't legislated it from the bench (yet) even for government entities, so they are doing other things.

It has been written into civil rights law at the state level for some states (I haven't counted how many) and for many municipalities (including my own).

At the federal level, they are moving ahead by way of the EEOC, which has started to treat gender identity as a protected class even though no written law gives them the authority to do so. Also, I gather Obama is about to do it with an executive order for all colleges that receive federal funds. I haven't read the text of that. Hey, who needs Congress when you have the executive branch on your side?

Also, SCOTUS seems to be flirting with legislating "protected class status" for sexual orientation from the bench for all government entities by way of the reasoning used when they struck down DOMA, but they didn't quite say that. Such a decision is not at all implausible, however, in the future.

even though no written law gives them the authority to do so

You'd think the American people would find a problem with this. But apparently they don't. And without such a law, by what authority does Obama dictate to colleges that this class must be protected? Those federal funds aren't sitting in his personal piggy bank. They belong to all of us.

Suppose that A thinks that B is a pervert and B thinks that A is a bigot for thinking that B is a pervert.

When you write it like that, perhaps you can see that the two are not really comparable.
A holds a view about B.
B holds a view about herself.

B's disapproval of A is contingent on A's disapproval of B.
B can "act on her beliefs" as a gay person in a way that has nothing to do with A.
A, on the other hand, cannot "act on her beliefs" in a way that has nothing to with B, because A's belief is about B.

You could extend the example to infinity: A thinks B is wrong to believe A is wrong; B thinks A is wrong to believe that. Etc.

But the heart of the matter is that B just is, and A has a problem with that.

If the discussion were not about LGBT rights, would you really hold that A is the one who deserves to control the social sphere?

In other words, is this a principle that you support without regard to your personal religious views, or are you simply saying that you want privilege because you want privilege?

Actually, B does not merely hold an opinion about himself. I can quite clearly remember sitting across a lunch table from a man I'll call J, approximately twenty years ago. J. handed me a news story about a little boy whose teacher was ranting to the effect that anyone who thinks that homosexuality is abnormal is a bigot. J thought the teacher was a not-so-closet totalitarian. I forget precisely how the conversation went, but I believe that at one point I said, rather surprised at his vehemence (because J was just a secular person), "Do _you_ think homosexuality is abnormal?" J replied, with an amused smile, "I have no idea." Then he went on once again to express disapproval of the extreme views of the teacher concerning people who think homosexuality is abnormal. It was only later that I learned that J. self-identified as "gay."

The idea that to think of homosexuality as a perversion is _itself_ a form of bigotry is actually relatively new in history and does not automatically follow from one's self-identification as "gay."

But the heart of the matter is that B just is, and A has a problem with that.

This is silly question-begging. One could say this about absolutely anything. Suppose that one self-identified as a "cutter" and held that it is normal to cut one's face every day until one bleeds. If another person thinks this is an abnormal inclination and that it should not be normalized, that one is harming oneself, if another person feels sorry for the "cutter" and thinks that there are contexts in which this strange inclination would *quite understandably* affect the other person's qualifications for a job or volunteer position, then the one who disapproves of "being a cutter" does not have a problem with the fact that the "cutter" "just is." Rather, he has a problem with the "cutter's" abnormal desires, which he regards as an _affliction_ which the "cutter" has most unfortunately decided, or been taught, to treat as normal and to demand that others treat as normal.

Make up your own example if you don't like that one. The point is that moral traditionalists are under no obligation to accept homosexuals' self-identification with their own inclinations to unnatural acts. That is why compassion and love for the person is not only compatible with but indeed _mandates_ sorrow for his abnormal inclinations and disapproval of his acting on them.

If the discussion were not about LGBT rights, would you really hold that A is the one who deserves to control the social sphere?

Of course there is no metaprinciple that mechanically tells us which ideas should "control the social sphere." This question is a bit like saying, "Here's a black box containing an idea. Should this idea be acted upon in society and policy?" Without knowing what's in the box, of course you can't know whether it should be acted upon or not! If the discussion were not about the gay rights movement, it could be about absolutely anything, so who knows what I would say about A and B!

Ideas such as that man and women are natural complements, that homosexual acts are abnormal, that gender is not merely a social construct, that males cannot change into females or vice versa, and so forth, should be normative in the social sphere because they are *importantly true* and because it will greatly harm mankind if these basic, sane ideas are derided and their denial made normative. Indeed, much harm has already been done. Moreover, let me add that such ideas are not per se religious.

Anyone who has a minimally mature understanding of politics and reality should realize that it is impossible for society to be _neutral_ about whether men and women are different, whether marriage can be contracted between two men or not, whether children are born as boys and girls or instead choose their gender later on, and a host of other related issues. Liberals don't even expect society to be neutral about whether smoking is detrimental to your health! Yet when it suits their purpose they will speak, for a while, as though it is possible for policy and society at large to be neutral about the extremely fundamental issues that arise in the homosexual and transgender rights movements. Then in the end, of course, it becomes evident that this "neutrality" was fake and that approval is, in fact, demanded. That arc, I argue, arises out of the very nature of the issues involved and the positions taken by the homosexual rights movement.

should be normative in the social sphere because they are *importantly true*

So you're not capable of discussing your beliefs *as beliefs*? That level of remove is just too abstract for you?

You're aware that *most* people think their beliefs are true?

Are you capable of discussing whether or not your beliefs (or any belief) is true?

Even if the Chase survey was anonymous it still stinks and is a playground of mischief. Any number less than 100% saying they identify as LGBT allys would be taken as grounds for mandatory sensitivity workshops where they could discover the thought criminals. This is just the "safe zones" that infested every college campus in the 90s taken to the corporate world.

Even if the Chase survey was anonymous it still stinks and is a playground of mischief. Any number less than 100% saying they identify as LGBT allys would be taken as grounds for mandatory sensitivity workshops where they could discover the thought criminals. This is just the "safe zones" that infested every college campus in the 90s taken to the corporate world.

So you're not capable of discussing your beliefs *as beliefs*? That level of remove is just too abstract for you?

You're aware that *most* people think their beliefs are true?

This is just wearisome childishness, of a kind I have seen from you before, Phil. From you, Phil, "discussing your beliefs as beliefs" amounts to some kind of postmodern posturing in which one treats all _policy_ based on a proposition which Phil disagrees with as mere arbitrary preference given to some _person_. And so, no, in that sense, in the sense in which you mean it, I don't "discuss my beliefs as beliefs," not because I'm incapable of abstraction, but because I'm not a postmodernist. If the "belief" you happened to question were that food nourishes or fire burns, for example, I would also not "discuss my beliefs as beliefs" in the sense of agreeing that it is arbitrary for policy and social decision-making to be based on those beliefs, since after all, Phil questions them! Even if larger swathes of society had gone crazy enough also to question them, that wouldn't mean that I would be promoting some sort of arbitrary preference for myself by assuming that society and policy _should_ be based on these propositions. And so it is with things like the falsity of the insanity of the transgender agenda: A boy cannot change into a girl. A girl cannot change into a boy. And so forth

As I said, it is impossible for society and policy to be neutral on these subjects. This isn't whether the Cubs or the Dodgers is the better baseball team or whether thin or regular spaghetti is tastier. And so *of course* I want policy and social decisions to be based on the truth in these areas rather than on twisted falsehoods.

"This is a zero-sum game. There is a "them" and there is an "us." If they win, we lose. Getting that clear may be a grim realization, and it may lead to other, further, grim realizations. But one of the first necessities in a war, including a culture war, is clarity of mind. We conservatives need such clarity, now more than ever."

Hmmmmm, your concluding paragraph is well-stated and clear. It leads me to ask this question: "Would you say that, by and large, the liberal community of LGBT activists and their straight liberal sympathizers, whether theological or secular liberals, have had that clarity that this is a zero-sum game more so than conservatives?"

If so, why do you think that liberals saw this more clearly, and more early on in the struggle/conflict/game than conservatives did?

Because liberals have been ruthless ______'s for several decades now, while conservatives still want to think of themselves as bipartisan and willing to find a compromise point. All the liberals who were still left who really believed in compromise with conservatives and in bipartisanship became neocons back in the 1980's or 1990's at the latest.

"Because liberals have been ruthless ______'s for several decades now"

I'll agree to that. Given this agreement, that Liberals have been ruthless and will continue to be ruthless, how should the Biblical Christian Conservative respond?

It has been deeply puzzling to me that conservatives are able to so easily and readily identify the Liberal playbook with its named strategies and tactics of "Cloward and Piven" and "Saul Alinsky" and yet still fail so miserably in combatting these ungodly methods.

I'm a football guy. I remember a Superbowl between the Oakland Raiders and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The Bucs had Jon Gruden has its head coach and he was the Oakland Raiders head coach the year before. Or maybe it was two years before. Anyways, Gruden knew the Raider offensive playbook ahead of time. And he coached his defense on how to stop it. And stop it they did! The Bucs won the Super Bowl handily because they knew the other teams playbook.

Soooooooooo. The conservative braintrust knows, KNOWS!, the liberal playbook of "Cloward and Piven" and "Alinsky's Rules for Radicals" and yet lo and behold, they/we are utterly powerless to stop from getting steamrolled. I don't get it. We know they are going to run "Sweep Power Left" but we get run over anyways. Are we conservatives that mismatched? Or stupid? What gives? More over, what to do?

Fight fire with fire? And come under withering attack from behind from "moderate" conservatives for adopting and adapting tactics that liberals use?

Or surrender and be crucified?

Or is there another way, once clarity of conflict is achieved? What say thee, Lydia? Or any of the other WWTW pundits.

Fight fire with fire? And come under withering attack from behind from "moderate" conservatives for adopting and adapting tactics that liberals use?

Or surrender and be crucified?

Or is there another way, once clarity of conflict is achieved? What say thee, Lydia? Or any of the other WWTW pundits.

I'll take a crack at this, but I only speak for myself -- I doubt there is a consensus here about how to fight the Left. On the other hand, I do know that both Lydia and my other fellow bloggers have written on the importance of politicians speaking the truth, including the Christian truth in public; being willing to fight for Constitutional principals (from a generally original or textual understanding of the Constitution); ignoring "moderate conservative" complaining when directed at social conservatives (see e.g. the Akin affair or the issue of rape and abortion in general); cheering on someone like Dave Brat who stands for principle against a Beltway insider who was willing to compromise on an important, foundational issue like immigration; etc.

More broadly, I guess we need to continue to push the modern G.O.P to be a real conservative party while selling real conservative ideas to the American public. And do this while proudly proclaiming our faith in Christ.

TUAD, let me clearly state that I have no strategy to sell, if by "sell" one means "promote as likely to win in the political sphere." I'm far more concerned with individual integrity or maybe group integrity on the level of small groups than I am with global winning strategy, because for all I know perhaps God is going to permit us to lose in the immediate political future. I believe in the value of lost causes. So even if Hobby Lobby had been driven out of business, for example, but had not compromised their principles, to me the win would have been their refusal to compromise. You can apply the same point, mutatis mutandis, to any type of bullying situation in this vicinity--to a Chase Bank employee who struggles with his conscience when he faces that question on the survey, for example. The war now is coming down to a bunch of little wars--the battlefield within each man's conscience, the battle for a particular church, denomination, or college, etc.

I think in this regard that one of the most important things we can do is to keep (or get) our own houses in order. On the level of Christian colleges, for example, this probably is going to mean un-doing some stupid things that have been done over the past couple of decades. For example, if a Christian college has allowed a lot of fifth columnists to come in and teach, they should find a way to fire them. If they find that their chapel speakers are spending much more time telling their students about the necessity for compassion on homosexuals and breast-beating over our alleged "unkindness" to homosexuals in the past, they should realize something is wrong. And so forth. Stop all of this search for a way to brand ourselves as sweet and kind. It isn't going to work, and it's only going to confuse the millenials all the more. Make sure the millenials understand that there is a choice and that they have to make it. Even kick out students who advocate for "gay rights" and who openly reject a school's position on the wrongness of homosexual acts.

Churches need to take a similar policy towards Sunday School teachers and invited speakers. Nobody should be teaching or speaking under the auspices of an allegedly orthodox church who takes a pro-homosexual-rights position. In fact, again, we shouldn't be hearing from our pulpits or Sunday School classes all about how meeeeaaaann we've been to the homosexuals and how we need to agonize over how to find a way to make them feel welcome. That's all a Trojan horse.

Conservatives should _always_ oppose homosexual rights ordinances and laws and should know exactly why they do so, not be so stupid as to think that we can "oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" while keeping our freedom. Christian writers, thinkers, and teachers need to explain the reason for this opposition clearly from whatever position they have.

I strongly agree with Jeff's advocacy of telling the GOP to stop throwing its more conservative candidates under the bus. It's scandalous and should not be tolerated by the rank and file.

Another point I would make concerns matters of procedure. Here is an example: Anybody remember all the weeping and wailing concerning the so-called "nuclear option" when the Republicans had the Senate. We should have _taken_ that "nuclear option." And frankly, we shouldn't castigate the liberals for doing it. It's perfectly legal. We should have done it ourselves. Our legislators need to understand where the line falls between being low-down, dirty, and dishonest, on the one hand, and being over-scrupulous, on the other hand. There are procedural techniques that are in a sense bare-knuckled but are also not contrary to the rule of law, except in some imaginative and rarefied mind that sees the rule of law as having a very large penumbra indeed. That all should have gone by the boards years ago. Even Ronald Reagan should have used the power of recess appointments more than he did after the Borking of Bork. You get the picture. Our Marquis of Queensbury rules which our lawmakers impose upon themselves are unnecessarily restrictive.

Hopefully more organizations treat traditional Christians the way Mozilla treated Eich. I had some sympathy for such people before Hobby Lobby, but now I have none.

You want the free market? Very well, ask and ye shall receive. I look forward to seeing such people treated the way Bob Jones University was after the civil rights movement. I suspect it will be extremely amusing.

>This is a zero-sum game. There is a "them" and there is an "us." If they win, we lose. Getting that clear may be a grim realization, and it may lead to other, further, grim realizations. But one of the first necessities in a war, including a culture war, is clarity of mind. We conservatives need such clarity, now more than ever.


This strikes me as delusional. The war is over, and you lost. Your soldiers are quietly slipping away in nursing home all across the country, and there are no reinforcements coming to man the battlements. Christendom is finished. Praise the Lord! As Ross Douthat pointed out a few months ago, the future of religious organizations will be influenced by how they treat those that support gay rights. You aren't fighting us, you are negotiating the terms of your surrender. You are literally at our mercy. Trying to get institutions to fire or refuse to hire people for being gay even when individuals remain chaste will just destroy the sympathy that you do have.

Your soldiers are quietly slipping away in nursing home all across the country, and there are no reinforcements coming to man the battlements.

Strange. I know quite a few young reinforcements. As usual, Dunsany, you need to get out more.

You want the free market? Very well, ask and ye shall receive.

Not really. You would never in a million years agree to a trade on public policy whereby all non-discrimination laws concerning religion were repealed in exchange for abandoning all efforts to have sexual orientation included in non-discrimination laws. So there's no point in pretending or lying. We know you don't mean "ask, and ye shall receive." You just happen to _like_ it when big businesses also enforce your agenda. But you also want government enforcing it.

Dear Lydia,

Your previous comment above at 5:14pm was a tour-de-force. Simply excellent, deserving of a blogpost all its own. Seriously. I thought it was that good.

"I believe in the value of lost causes."

I copied and pasted that article and a follow-on article of yours about the Glory of Lost Causes awhile back. I love that article.

"The war now is coming down to a bunch of little wars"

I had not thought of that before. Revelatory. And helpful.

"Stop all of this search for a way to brand ourselves as sweet and kind."

Hale and hearty laughter. Thanks for the guts to say so. So unladylike. ;-)

"In fact, again, we shouldn't be hearing from our pulpits or Sunday School classes all about how meeeeaaaann we've been to the homosexuals and how we need to agonize over how to find a way to make them feel welcome. That's all a Trojan horse."

When you dragged out the "meeeeaaaann" I actually thought of Albert Mohler and Russell Moore. I don't know why, but I did. I like and respect them both for their staunch commitments to Scripture, yet sometimes they do appear....

Dunsany: "Hopefully more organizations treat traditional Christians the way Mozilla treated Eich."

That was so wrong. Also, the liberal organizations finding out Prop. 8 donor lists was just heinous. And the chilling consequence that less and less conservatives will financially donate to conservative causes and organizations for fear, justified and reasonable fear, of financial violence and retribution by intolerant liberals.

Dunsany: "You aren't fighting us, you are negotiating the terms of your surrender. You are literally at our mercy."

Hyperbole, but certainly there is some element of truth to what you're saying. However, please note what Lydia said previously: "I believe in the value of lost causes. So even if Hobby Lobby had been driven out of business, for example, but had not compromised their principles, to me the win would have been their refusal to compromise."

Dunsany, if you want to punish and execute the uncompromising Christians, we still win. Jesus was crucified and He did not compromise either. And He wins. So if your black liberal heart wants more organizations to treat treat traditional Christians like Eich was treated, then the clarity is appreciated.


>Strange. I know quite a few young reinforcements. As usual, Dunsany, you need to get out more.

I wasn't speaking literally Lydia. You're smart enough to understand concepts like hyperbole and figurative language, so that should have been obvious to you. There are some young people who agree with traditional Christian teachings, but as a general rule they do not. Christianity as it current exists will turn into irreligion and moralistic therapeutic deism while traditional forms of the faith basically die out in the west.


>Not really. You would never in a million years agree to a trade on public policy whereby all non-discrimination laws concerning religion were repealed in exchange for abandoning all efforts to have sexual orientation included in non-discrimination laws. So there's no point in pretending or lying. We know you don't mean "ask, and ye shall receive." You just happen to _like_ it when big businesses also enforce your agenda. But you also want government enforcing it.

You're right. Fortunately for me my side is going to win.

>Dunsany, if you want to punish and execute the uncompromising Christians, we still win. Jesus was crucified and He did not compromise either. And He wins.

I know you believe that, and if it gives you comfort then more power to you. That said, you must know that those of us that are not religious think this is storybook nonsense. I would also point out that religious charities, schools, and institutions will be seriously harmed by such a lack of cooperation. Something to keep in mind.

Dunsany, you do seem to neglect the distinction between "at our mercy" and "terms of surrender." Some of us will die rather than surrender. You can make martyrs, but I doubt that will help you as much as you would like it to. The greatest victory is not to submit to being corrupted. Those of true principle will not do so, and that is what my advice now is chiefly about.

Let me clarify, in response to something in your previous comment, that I do not in general suggest that chaste people who suffer from same-sex attraction be fired. Not at all. There can be issues that do arise even with homosexuals who are not currently sexually active, but those vary tremendously with circumstances, and I do not claim to have any one-size-fits-all advice, even for my fellow conservatives, on that matter. I do think they should be more willing to admit the issues that can arise (such as the living arrangement issues I mentioned in the post for residential colleges, and many other similar issues for particular jobs), and I also think they have not thought sufficiently about the fact that the act/orientation distinction is simply insufficient to deal with the transgender movement. But my purpose is not, pace your comment, to advise fellow conservatives to fire chaste homosexuals but rather to get them to realize that they cannot make a compromise by way of the act-orientation distinction that will allow them to be left alone. Therefore, they should not try to ingratiate themselves by that means or by any other, because it will not work. They should concentrate instead on keeping their own thinking and understanding maximally clear on this entire set of issues, on teaching well, and on keeping their integrity.

You're too melodramatic. You won't be killed, you will be marginalized and seen as silly. I actually think many Christians would prefer actual oppression to such a fate, it is possible to find beauty and meaning in the Charge of the Light Brigade. Being made into a powerless joke? Not so much. I think I remember TS Eliot saying something along these lines, but I might be wrong.


>But my purpose is not, pace your comment, to advise fellow conservatives to fire chaste homosexuals but rather to get them to realize that they cannot make a compromise by way of the act-orientation distinction that will allow them to be left alone. Therefore, they should not try to ingratiate themselves by that means or by any other, because it will not work. They should concentrate instead on keeping their own thinking and understanding maximally clear on this entire set of issues, on teaching well, and on keeping their integrity.


That sounds better than what you said before, but not by much. The idea that gays and lesbians should be discriminated against people they are bunking with will feel icky would horrify many Christians, it's repulsive.

I posted a link to this article by Orthodox priest Stephen Freeman on Rod Dreher's blog, and I think it's relevant here too. http://glory2godforallthings.com/2014/07/18/the-long-defeat-and-the-cross/

Freeman talks about Tolkien's description of history as a "long defeat." In a nutshell, he explains that for most of church history, Christians expected the world to get worse. Then in the 19th century, the heretical narrative of progress took over. The expectation of the Kingdom of God was transferred to the worldly sphere. Christendom was a bit of an anomaly and we're getting a taste of the "real world."

Freeman summed it up quite well:

Those who long for a return to Christendom (in all its various forms) engage in an understandable nostalgia. But they do not engage in something promised by the gospel nor established as a theological necessity.

Dunsany is probably right that there won't be any actual martyrs (at least in the West. The Middle East and China are a different story) but there'll be confessors a'plenty.

Dunsany you forget that Christianity started in a time when liberty and licence were the norm. It arose and became strong because people, ordinary people, slaves and the despised didn't actually want to live in that way, however much the rich may have wanted to.

Liberal USA is not the sum of humanity, and not even a very important part of its history. It will pass the way other empires have passed. There are vast numbers of poor and dispossessed people for whom the message of Christ, charity and love are much more relevant than what rich liberals in the USA perceive as problems - and who need that message rather than homilies on non-discrimination.

Hopefully more organizations treat traditional Christians the way Mozilla treated Eich. I had some sympathy for such people before Hobby Lobby, but now I have none....

the future of religious organizations will be influenced by how they treat those that support gay rights. You aren't fighting us, you are negotiating the terms of your surrender. You are literally at our mercy...

I would also point out that religious charities, schools, and institutions will be seriously harmed by such a lack of cooperation. Something to keep in mind.

I like that. First it's all "we're just asking to be treated nicely" and then when you have the power it's "toe the line, surrender 'or else'. " Dunsany has gotten to the threaten stage. And while he expects it not to run to actual death because he thinks Christians will cave in, he seems pretty much OK with killing them if they won't.

How nice for it to come out of the closet.

You won't be killed, you will be marginalized and seen as silly.

Actually, I think someone's losing his job because of something like the Chase Bank survey will not (automatically) look silly to a lot of people, including some remaining secular people, who will find the persecution distasteful. If a person in that position keeps the integrity of his beliefs, states them well, and his case is publicized, he will look like a martyr being hounded for his beliefs, which is actually what he will be. If he apologizes, that's a different matter. But I suggest he not apologize.

the idea that gays and lesbians should be discriminated against [because] people they are bunking with will feel icky would horrify many Christians it's repulsive.

That gets a big shrug from me and is illogical. You might as well say, "The idea that men should not be put in dorm rooms and shower rooms with women just because the women would feel icky is repulsive." I already anticipated this kind of emotionalism in the main post. There is supposedly some point in separating males and females in sleeping arrangements, and it has always been assumed to have _something_ to do with sexual privacy, with taking sexual desire and interest out of extremely close living arrangements in which people are changing, naked, sleeping, etc. It is common sense and not repulsive in the least. Applying it to those who have same-sex desires is merely a natural extension of the concept and has nothing to do with "hating" anybody, though of course the melodramatic and illogical homosexual activists will say that it does.

I take the "wrong side of history" rhetoric as easily-ignored bluster because a). The first guys to really bank on that rhetoric were the Soviets and b). Even if it was the case that evil was on the right side of history, that wouldn't be sufficient reason to surrender or join them. 10,000 orcs are not an excuse to abandon the walls of the Hornburg.

There is supposedly some point in separating males and females in sleeping arrangements, and it has always been assumed to have _something_ to do with sexual privacy, with taking sexual desire and interest out of extremely close living arrangements in which people are changing, naked, sleeping, etc. It is common sense and not repulsive in the least.

You'd think so, but no. There was a ruling out of California that specifically said other people's discomfort was not sufficient reason to deny transgenders the use of the bathroom for their "gender identity."

My job had a diversity conference earlier this year. The bathrooms in the hall were designated as gender-neutral. The signs basically said "if that makes you uncomfortable, now you know how transgendered people feel when they go to the bathroom." In other words, "check your privilege." At one of the breakout sessions, the speaker asked each participant which pronoun we preferred; male, female, or other. Common sense left the building a while ago.

> There is supposedly some point in separating males and females in sleeping arrangements,

I don't care if you think there is some point to it. Either explain what the point is and then justify excluding entire categories of people on that basis or stop pretending like your position is rational. Vague appeals to tradition work on Christians, they do not work on me.


>Actually, I think someone's losing his job because of something like the Chase Bank survey will not (automatically) look silly to a lot of people, including some remaining secular people, who will find the persecution distasteful. If a person in that position keeps the integrity of his beliefs, states them well, and his case is publicized, he will look like a martyr being hounded for his beliefs, which is actually what he will be. If he apologizes, that's a different matter. But I suggest he not apologize.


You're free to think that if you want to, but this is just more wishful thinking. It seems like a lot of Christians don't realize how defeated they really are. Did people on the left get upset when Eich was fired? A few did, but in general we didn't have a problem with it.

@ Dan Zachariah

Rome was an oppressive slave society, it did not provide "liberty." I stopped reading your post there because it was too silly to take seriously.

Wait, so Dunsany thinks men and women (heterosexual) _should_ be forced to sleep and shower together in colleges, that it is _irrational_ to give them even separate rooms or any privacy from one another when naked? And it's just a vague "appeal to tradition" which "only works on Christians" to let women shower separately from men and vice versa? What a nutcase.

And, yeah, if one sees the rationality of _that_, then the extension to those with same-sex attraction is obvious.

In fact, if one is talking about a college such as a Christian college where incoming students allegedly accept the college's moral stances, the men shouldn't want to be showering with naked women nor should homosexual men (those with that inclination) want to be showering with other men. If they do want to, then that can be presumed to mean they reject the college's moral stance anyway because they want to ogle or, at a minimum, don't mind being confronted with images they find sexually arousing. Which would be grounds for rejecting their application to such a college anyway.

CJ, of course the transgender agenda is insane, and no one can pretend it has anything to do with common sense. Even some homosexuals oppose it.

But I suppose I shd. add that the legal fiction, such as it is, is that "transgender persons" do in fact identify as the opposite sex. Therefore, _technically_, giving them the right to use the shower with the opposite sex isn't giving heterosexual people the right to use the shower with the opposite sex. Calling a prohibition on the latter "irrational" and acting as though one has no understanding of the privacy issues involved is going, in a sense, even beyond the insanity of the transgenders (if that is possible).

Co-ed bathing isn't even that new of an idea, you are viewing this from a prudish cultural lens. Besides, sharing a bathroom or sleeping the same dorms is a far cry from letting people spy on each other's naked bodies whenever they please. In any case, I'm fine with gender segregated dorms as bathrooms as long as accommodations are made for LGBT individuals.

>In fact, if one is talking about a college such as a Christian college where incoming students allegedly accept the college's moral stances, the men shouldn't want to be showering with naked women nor should homosexual men (those with that inclination) want to be showering with other men. If they do want to, then that can be presumed to mean they reject the college's moral stance anyway because they want to ogle or, at a minimum, don't mind being confronted with images they find sexually arousing. Which would be grounds for rejecting their application to such a college anyway.

You're so uncharitable to other people Lydia. Sometimes it's hard to understand how you see yourself as a Christian. Wanting to attend a Christian school is not the same as wanting to shower with other men, and it is perfectly possible for gay people to want to attend such a school while believing they can control their desires and live up to the school's ethical standards. In any case, I don't think sharing a bathroom is really the same as bathing together the way people do in a Japanese hot springs. What you're really doing is trying to figure out a way to justify excluding gay people.

I don't even know what sort of "gay person" you are imagining, Dunsany. If you're imagining one who agrees with the position of the hypothetical school--namely, that homosexual desires are intrinsically disordered and homosexual acts morally wrong--then your entire perspective is skewed. I cannot imagine a heterosexual man who has Christian ethical standards actually holding that he has a right to share a dorm room with a woman to whom he isn't married! So why should a putative homosexual person who shares those standards hold that he has a right to share a dorm room with a man? It makes no sense. You simply lack sufficient imagination even to envisage the scenario clearly. Your hypothetical "Christian gay person," if he's demanding to live in the men's dorms, apparently doesn't really grok the whole interrelated set of concepts of privacy, lust, and temptation, yet most of us (maybe not you, but the rest of us) routinely expect heterosexual men and women to grok those concepts and to understand how they give rise to a particular set of living arrangements in a morally traditional residential context such as a college.

The fact of the matter is that Christian colleges who do have sex-segregated dorms have simply refused to face their own inconsistency concerning homosexual orientation. And the reason for this refusal is precisely that they have been afraid of the kinds of accusations of cruelty, meanness, "looking for an excuse to exclude," and all the rest of the nonsense that Dunsany slings around with such a lavish hand. It's a simple matter of logic: If some admittedly fully heterosexual dude applied to a Christian college with sex-segregated dorms and demanded that he be given a woman for his roommate and a place in the women's dorm, stated that his feelings were hurt when his demand was refused, said that the college officials were "uncharitable" because they didn't think that he could "control his desires" and "live up to the school's ethical standards," he'd simply be laughed at. Nobody would take seriously for a moment the accusations of unkindness because this guy wasn't placed in the women's dorm with a female roommate.

Yet because homosexuals have positioned themselves as a victim group, the _exactly parallel_ demand on their part is treated as something that must be met or else we are being unkind, etc. And anyone who feels uncomfortable about having a homosexual roommate (for exactly the same type of reason that a woman would feel uncomfortable having a male roommate) is accused of repulsive bigotry. What a lot of nonsense.

The school officials need to grow a spine and recognize the inconsistency in their own approach. If it's simply a matter of purity of motive, then all the heterosexual guys have a right to female roommates, too! And the women should just get over their hangups about it.

Now, yes, I understand the practical problems this raises: If the homosexual man (say) cannot be accommodated in the men's dorm because his sexual inclination is towards men and the intention is to have the dorms sex-segregated, and he can't be accommodated in the women's dorm because the women would (understandably) not want a male roommate, even if assured that he is homosexual (plus that would be bizarre and would put a big label on him), then what does one do if one still wants to admit the person? Frankly, I don't have a good solution. If schools don't want to exclude those with homosexual orientation altogether, they might have to relax rules about living off-campus, in which case they would have to relax such rules across the board. That raises issues of its own about having a campus culture and experience, a tight-knit community, maintaining standards, etc., etc., especially for a religious college.

Dunsany,

You say, "The war is over, and you lost. Your soldiers are quietly slipping away in nursing home all across the country, and there are no reinforcements coming to man the battlements."

Wait, I thought liberals were the ones who lived in the 'reality-based community' and loved science and data? How come you know nothing about demography? The future belongs to those who show up.

Of course, Lydia's words of wisdom about lost causes are bracing and needed in these dark times. But if one bothers to look at who is having kids these days -- I have news for you -- it's not liberals.

For the moment our great Captain puts his hand into his bosom and allows the enemy to exult, but he is not defeated, nor is he in the least disquieted.

http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2014/07/encouraging-words-from-spurgeon.html

Wait, I thought liberals were the ones who lived in the 'reality-based community' and loved science and data? How come you know nothing about demography? The future belongs to those who show up.

Jeffrey S. nails it. We are fighting the civilizational long game. Simply count the number of kids typical traditional conservatives have, who then predominently mate with other traditionalists who then produce higher than replacement birth rates. And the secularists aren't even reproducing at replacement level.

The situation is similar to the orthodox jews who were a small minority mid century but are poised to become the majority of the jewish population within a generation.

God favors large batallions and yours all happen to be demographically shrinking over the long haul.

Suppose that one self-identified as a "cutter" and held that it is normal to cut one's face every day until one bleeds. If another person thinks this is an abnormal inclination and that it should not be normalized


Your example is fine. It doesn't strike me as a moral analogy for gay people, but I wasn't trying to convince you of the moral neutrality of homosexuality. I was just pointing out that the nature of the two different beliefs is different.

X believes that cutting is normal and natural.
Y believes that what X believes is abnormal and wrong.

X can act out her beliefs by cutting herself.
Y can only act out her beliefs by doing something to X.

You're not comparing apples to apples.

If the two beliefs were the same, then X could act out her beliefs by cutting herself, and Y could act out her beliefs by not cutting herself. Whether cutting oneself is a good thing or not is irrelevant to whether the beliefs held by two people about it are analogous.

In your opening example, it was wrong of Chase Bank to ask employees whether they are LGBT allies in a non-anonymous survey. It was also wrong of Chase Bank to ask employees whether they identify as LGBT in a non-anonymous survey.

This is a zero sum game, you say? What, you've been fighting against the workplace discrimination faced by LGBT people, and now you're concerned that orthodox conservatives might face workplace discrimination?

Phil, I don't have a general policy that "all workplace discrimination of all kinds is wrong." Probably, neither do you. I'm sure you can think of lots of things that warrant "discrimination," otherwise the only way to decide whom to hire or retain would be by throwing dice, or putting all the names of anybody who ever wants to work for a company into a hat, which nobody believes. _What_ sort of thing should be taken into account in those decisions is one of the things we disagree about.

As for your response to my example, you are intelligent enough that you can easily think of ways in which the "cutter" could make his practices and inclinations known both to fellow employees, the employer, and customers, and demand acceptance of them and be defensive about them, in such a way that the employer would consider his "self-identification" understandably annoying and disruptive to the business. One can readily imagine many situations in which this _problem_ that the cutter has would _understandably_ cause him not to be chosen for various positions. (Boy Scout leader, for example.) In other words, contra what you said, to which I responded with this example, the problem isn't that the cutter "just is" but rather that the cutter has a _problem_ and demands acceptance of it. Some _problems_ get in the way of one's being selected for certain positions, and all the more so if one refuses to acknowledge that they are problems but demands that everyone accept them as normal and as part of one's identity.

Jeffrey and Untenured, I hope this doesn't sound too gloomy, but the problem is that too many Christians are sending their children to public schools. I have previously compared this to the origin of the janissaries--as young prisoners of war, sometimes originally Christian, taken by the Muslims in battle and then raised to be fanatical Muslims and Islam's most feared soldiers. To decide who owns the future we must look not simply at who gives birth to the children but at who guides their upbringing. To be sure, children of Christians who go to public schools still have some input from their parents, but its effect is greatly, greatly reduced and indeed actively undone and counteracted. In my opinion if we want to take advantage of demographics we need to be _educating_ our children ourselves or else making sure that they are educated in a way that is consistent with our values. If the leftists are controlling their education from K-college, then demographic growth will simply feed the leftist machine.

Lydia, that is exactly right. The record of Christians turning out Christian kids when then send their kids to public schools and public universities is abysmal. It seems like at least half of such kids lose their faith by the time they get out of college. Of the ones who retain something of the practice of Christianity, some do so only superficially. Christ did say that "the student who is fully trained will become like the teacher." If you put in anti-Christian "masters" in charge of all the schools, the students are going to be hard pressed to retain their faith.

I'm fine with gender segregated dorms as bathrooms as long as accommodations are made for LGBT individuals.

Dunsany, you seem to have no concept of what you are asking for. The immediate implication would be for (at the least) a dorm (or bathroom) for gay men, and one for lesbian women, and one for trans males, and one for trans females. And one for EACH SEPARATE bisexual. That's in spite of the fact that gay and lesbians make up a small percentage of the population, and trans and *true* bisexuals make up a miniscule portion - meaning separate dorm (or bathroom) expenses for virtually no residents in very small institutions.

But setting that aside, the conceptual problem is much, much worse than that. For once you step away from the physical reality of the two sexes, there is no reason to keep with a two-sided polarity. You can have 10 or 20 or 58 sexes (that's the number facebook recently counted). But wait, there is no reason to stop there, you can have 10,000 of them. Every member of your student body could be a different gender. You could be the "feels like a birch tree on Thursdays" gender and Bobbiy could be "presents as a post-modern book-loving comic" gender. Who is to say WHAT constitutes the framework or boundaries of gender? A person IS what he FEELS like. Better yet, who is even to say that there even IS such a thing as gender? Why, we should just get rid of Title IX altogether as the benighted effluence of old-fashioned idiots who couldn't see that gender is just a fiction! Why, there is no such thing as gender after all! All the sports teams will just take the most talented individuals regardless of what physical organs they appear to have at the moment - no more women's swim, track, basketball teams. All the formerly women's wrestling teams will be swamped with candidates with male organs because they would love to wrestle around.

Hi Dunsany, Hi Lydia, et al,

Here's an insightful article that was recently published by Danusha V. Goska an insider about the Liberal Left End of the Socio-Political spectrum.

It's rather enlightening and helpful. And I should like to hear/read your perspectives on this article.

Hope you enjoy it.

>ut wait, there is no reason to stop there, you can have 10,000 of them. Every member of your student body could be a different gender. You could be the "feels like a birch tree on Thursdays" gender and Bobbiy could be "presents as a post-modern book-loving comic" gender. Who is to say WHAT constitutes the framework or boundaries of gender? A person IS what he FEELS like. Better yet, who is even to say that there even IS such a thing as gender? Why, we should just get rid of Title IX altogether as the benighted effluence of old-fashioned idiots who couldn't see that gender is just a fiction! Why, there is no such thing as gender after all! All the sports teams will just take the most talented individuals regardless of what physical organs they appear to have at the moment - no more women's swim, track, basketball teams. All the formerly women's wrestling teams will be swamped with candidates with male organs because they would love to wrestle around.

I don't have time to respond to everything that's been said, but I wanted to explain my view of sex and gender. I don't think many conservatives understand how liberals view this issue.


1. There are clear biological differences between men and women. Some liberals deny this, but they are part of a radical fringe.

2. In an ideal world it would be possible to transcend biological limitations and alter our bodies into anything we like. In many science fiction novels it's easy for characters to change their sex, and I think that we would be much better off it that was the way the world worked. I don't believe in an intrinsic male or female essence/telos, so for me this is an issue of biology limiting our choices. Sort of like the way can't make our bodies immune to cancer even if we would really like to.

It's difficult for conservatives to grasp the liberal view of gender because they are shackled to archaic ideas about the teleology of the sexes.

B can "act on her beliefs" as a gay person in a way that has nothing to do with A.

No, B cannot act on her beliefs, in a way relevant to the discussion, that has nothing to do with A. The relevant "act" of B is believing A to be a bigot for believing B to be perverted and demanding society punish A for it. If B simply ignored A's alleged bigotry, there would be no issue.

Are we conservatives that mismatched? Or stupid?

Outnumbered (in the places that matter). Knowing the Power Sweep Left is called means nothing if you only have one undersized lineman available to counter it against 1500 lbs of onrushing behemoths.

Christianity as it current exists will turn into irreligion and moralistic therapeutic deism while traditional forms of the faith basically die out in the west.

Maybe, but you forget one thing. The "West" is also dying out in the West. Sharia don't take too kindly to LGBTXYZ.

Did people on the left get upset when Eich was fired? A few did, but in general we didn't have a problem with it.

Of course not, because Leftists are hypocrits.

Simply count the number of kids typical traditional conservatives have, who then predominently mate with other traditionalists who then produce higher than replacement birth rates. And the secularists aren't even reproducing at replacement level.

Alas, political and religious worldviews aren't 100% hereditary. My parents were both traditional conservatives, and I am probably the least liberal of my many siblings.

Dunsany, as far as I can see, you are confirming my point: according to the fringe, there is no reason for thinking the human world fundamentally consists of only 2 or 4 or 10 genders.

There are clear biological differences between men and women. Some liberals deny this, but they are part of a radical fringe.

Most sane and honest psychologists also admit that there are clear psychological differences between the sexes. Many liberals deny this, but they are part of a radical fringe.

It is entirely possible that the psychological differences arise primarily through the initial mechanisms of sex differentiation in the embryo, so that the difference is at root caused physically. But once the brain has formed via those biological factors, it really has those characteristics that play out in psychological differences. In order to really "change" your sex, you would have to both change the *current* physical / hormonal / chemical basis of successful sex identity, and also change the pathway structures in the brain and all of the psychological basis for the sexual identity as well. I don't know of any plausible science fiction that has tackled that reality in playing around with "easily" changed sexual identity.

In an ideal world it would be possible to transcend biological limitations and alter our bodies into anything we like.

In the liberals notion of "the ideal world" not only would it be easy peasy to make bodily alterations like this, but there wouldn't ever be any unpleasant consequences to doing so either.

But of course, in THIS world, taking into account real biology and real psychology, a person's interior identity and their sanity and their ability to function as humans in a socially sane environment are all connected in such extensive and integrated ways that changing one facet only would damage their soundness in other ways: they would become neurotic, psychotic or sociopathic, they would become physically ill, etc. In the real world of actual reality, (as opposed to make believe), damaging an integrated, healthy person in one way involves cascades of other problems.

shackled to archaic ideas about the teleology of the sexes.

Gee, I had never heard of the Biblical view described that way. "Male and female he created them."

Oddly enough, Dunsany, you haven't bothered to propose one single suggestion as to why doing these things (if they become available the way you suggest) is good rather than not good. All you seem to suggest is if it feels good, do it. Which is a rather puerile notion of ethics, to say the least. I don't suppose you actually have something like a developed notion of right and wrong that speaks to something more importantly human than this moment's feelings, do you? Because that kind of teleology makes it OK for me to kill someone if it feels good to me. Or any other horror.

Tony,

Based on past comments I highly doubt you lack the scientific training to evaluate what is plausible or implausible when it comes to stuff like this. You're scientifically illiterate.

>In order to really "change" your sex, you would have to both change the *current* physical / hormonal / chemical basis of successful sex identity, and also change the pathway structures in the brain and all of the psychological basis for the sexual identity as well. I don't know of any plausible science fiction that has tackled that reality in playing around with "easily" changed sexual identity.

What is successful sexual identity? Sexual identity that makes people happy? Why would you need to alter ever conceivable biological process in order to change someone's sex in all the ways that people usually care about? Additionally, I never said this was possible, just that it would be ideal. You seem to be arguing against something that is totally irrelevant.

>But of course, in THIS world, taking into account real biology and real psychology, a person's interior identity and their sanity and their ability to function as humans in a socially sane environment are all connected in such extensive and integrated ways that changing one facet only would damage their soundness in other ways: they would become neurotic, psychotic or sociopathic, they would become physically ill, etc. In the real world of actual reality, (as opposed to make believe), damaging an integrated, healthy person in one way involves cascades of other problems.

What's a socially sane environment? I view belief in magic Jewish carpenters as insane, but don't have a problem with transsexuals. My idea of a sane society is where people like you are treated like delusional fools and trannys are broadly accepted. IOW, I couldn't care less about your desire to have people live out their lives in ways you think is acceptable. I also reject the premise that someone suffering from severe gender dysphoria is healthy.

>ddly enough, Dunsany, you haven't bothered to propose one single suggestion as to why doing these things (if they become available the way you suggest) is good rather than not good.

I believe that the satisfaction of human preferences and desires is good. That does not mean it is the only thing I value or that there are no side-constraints on our behavior. You seem to think that believing happiness is good means you have to believe that people can do anything they want that makes them happy. I don't agree with that, I just don't see a problem with altering your physical body in ways that please you. Additionally, that sort of morality would not be a kind of "teleology." It seems you do not know what that term means.

I don't agree with that, I just don't see a problem with altering your physical body in ways that please you.

Even from a utilitarian point of view, transgenderism hasn't been very successful at making people happy.

But aside from transgenderism, I was originally talking about homosexuals who don't want to alter their bodies but do have sexual desires towards the same sex. I was saying that there are issues about housing in dormitory settings at schools that have sex-segregated dorms and, in particular, that *if* there is a rationale at such a school for having sex-segregated dorms (which presumably school officials and parents and students agree that there is), then that same rationale will apply, mutatis mutandis, to those with same-sex attractions, making it difficult or impossible to house them in sex-segregated dorms while consistently maintaining that rationale.

As for "transgender individuals," if this means what it always means in public discourse--namely, actively _identifying_ oneself as something other than one's born gender and demanding that others comply with one's self-identification--I do believe that they should be excluded entirely, on grounds of behavior, from Christian or any morally traditional school or organization. Their entire approach to life and their demands to be treated as the opposite gender (or no gender) are at odds with the mission of any such institution. Chaste people with same-sex attraction disorder alone may, in theory, actually concur with the creed and mission of such an institution, but that is not possible for "transgender" individuals.

>But aside from transgenderism, I was originally talking about homosexuals who don't want to alter their bodies but do have sexual desires towards the same sex. I was saying that there are issues about housing in dormitory settings at schools that have sex-segregated dorms and, in particular, that *if* there is a rationale at such a school for having sex-segregated dorms (which presumably school officials and parents and students agree that there is), then that same rationale will apply, mutatis mutandis, to those with same-sex attractions, making it difficult or impossible to house them in sex-segregated dorms while consistently maintaining that rationale.

I understood your point, and I thought my position was clear. If a school isn't willing to make an exception because it thinks that allowing one gay man to room with other males is going to blow up the world then it should be considered bigoted. Such schools should lose their tax-exempt status and be treated the way Bob Jones University was in BJU v. United States. They can organize their school that way if they want to, but the rest of us should send the message that we consider them no better than racists.

> for "transgender individuals," if this means what it always means in public discourse--namely, actively _identifying_ oneself as something other than one's born gender and demanding that others comply with one's self-identification--I do believe that they should be excluded entirely, on grounds of behavior, from Christian or any morally traditional school or organization. Their entire approach to life and their demands to be treated as the opposite gender (or no gender) are at odds with the mission of any such institution. Chaste people with same-sex attraction disorder alone may, in theory, actually concur with the creed and mission of such an institution, but that is not possible for "transgender" individuals.

What about someone who is born intersex? Gender is not a binary and never was.

What about someone who is born intersex?

One would have to define that, which is a whole can of worms in itself. Such rare conditions are often simply used by the overall transgender movement (which is only loosely connected to any such conditions, if at all) as a kind of "wedge" to confuse. True hermaphroditism, as opposed to a disorder involving clear underlying genetic gender combined with ambiguous or opposite-gender external genital appearance, is rare. In the extremely unlikely event that a Christian true hermaphrodite wanted to live on-campus at a Christian college, it would be simpler and more reasonable to build such an unusual individual a tiny suite of his own off onto the corner of the student center than to change any general school policies.

I believe that the satisfaction of human preferences and desires is good. That does not mean it is the only thing I value or that there are no side-constraints on our behavior. You seem to think that believing happiness is good means you have to believe that people can do anything they want that makes them happy. I don't agree with that, I just don't see a problem with altering your physical body in ways that please you. Additionally, that sort of morality would not be a kind of "teleology." It seems you do not know what that term means.

You know, Dunsany, you have spent I can't say how many posts saying that "you believe" this or "you don't believe" that. Virtually never in the whole kit and caboodle of such comments have you bothered to actually frame a rationale for why what you "believe" is either actually true or at least a clearly better understanding of man and nature than Christianity provides. So all your spouting off accomplishes is a big fat zip in terms of actually moving a conversation forward. Why don't you, just for a change, provide some actual REASONS for the things you are claiming you believe instead of just positing them as different, instead of dancing around it as if it were supposed to be an all-serving Mystery.

For instance, this is about the 50th time you have alluded to a notion that you hold some mysterious framework of morality that actually has moral tenets. At the same time, you have constantly derided any notion of an objective moral code. In my book, I believe that a moral code that has not at root a hinge into objective reality - the way reality is (especially human nature) whether people accept it or want to accept it - it isn't really a moral code. But I believe that for a reason: what we mean by a moral code is a frame work of statements that proclaim what persons ought to do or live by. And an "ought" of that nature cannot come primarily and originally from man's volition, passions, emotions, preferences, tastes, or perceptions - such things are incapable of creating the original ground for an "ought". Since such source is outside of these, it is found in something real that is the way it is apart from how man wills it, feels about it, emotes over it, prefers it, etc. So, your challenge is to identify a meaning and basis for your "morality" that actually amounts to a real morality.

Engage the ideas, don't just quip about them.

I dislike getting into metaethics on blogs or other informal forums because the subject is so complicated, but I'll try to address some of the issues you've raised without getting into any of the real complexity. The other reason I dislike talking about metaethics is that I'm not really an expert on that branch of philosophy, so I'm not sure if what I say will be comprehensible. Keep that in mind.

"ut I believe that for a reason: what we mean by a moral code is a frame work of statements that proclaim what persons ought to do or live by. And an "ought" of that nature cannot come primarily and originally from man's volition, passions, emotions, preferences, tastes, or perceptions - such things are incapable of creating the original ground for an "ought"."


What do you mean by original ground for an ought? Why can't our subjective beliefs and desires serve as the basis for your moral code? Your argument seems to be missing a few pieces.


" Since such source is outside of these, it is found in something real that is the way it is apart from how man wills it, feels about it, emotes over it, prefers it, etc. So, your challenge is to identify a meaning and basis for your "morality" that actually amounts to a real morality. "

Where does your morality come from? God? I don't know what sort of religious moral theory you believe in, but most philosophers accept that Divine Command Theory and its offshoots are fundamentally subjective. It's just Euthyphro all over again. Does god command good because it is good, or is it good because god commands it? If it is the former than objective morality exists independently of god and does not come from him. He cannot change what is good nor is he the source of moral truths. If that is the case then objective morality is simply built into the universe and atheists like me can appeal to it just as easily as theists can assuming there is a way to ascertain what is good and what is bad according to these objective standards. If the good is good because god commands it then morality is fundamentally subjective because anything could become good of god wanted it to. If god said "raping and murdering toddlers is good" then under Divine Command Theory it would be. That is why many Christian philosophers, most notably Richard Swinburne, believe that morality exists independently of god. I guess my point is that you have no reason to be so self-righteous when it comes to this issue. I don't think theists have the better of this argument, and the simplistic arguments you've made are never going to carry the day.

"The war is over, and you lost. Your soldiers are quietly slipping away . . . and there are no reinforcements coming to man the battlements. Christendom is finished. Praise the Lord! . . . You aren't fighting us, you are negotiating the terms of your surrender. You are literally at our mercy."

Said the Roman Pagans in the 4th century after Julian abandoned the faith.

Said the Muslims in the 8th century before the Battle of Tours.

Said the Danes in the 9th Century after they had swept aside most English resistance.

Said the Cathars in the 13th Century before the Albigensian Crusade.

Said the Deists in the 18th Century when they were in the ascendent.

Said the Darwinians in the 19th Century after evolution had "disproved" Christianity.

Said the Nazis in the 20th Century when they had conquered almost all of Europe.

You may be right, but as Lydia's husband is fond of saying, "That's not the way to bet."

RC your reasoning is logically invalid. History doesn't follow a recognizable pattern, and plenty of ideologies that lasted for many centuries ended up dying out. You need to explain why we should think that traditional forms of Christianity will triumph, not point to past glories as if the matter is settled. That would be like Great Britain telling Hitler they didn't need to worry about his military because Britain used to be the greatest power in the world. The allies did win World War 2, but that was because they made an effort and analyzed the situation at hand.

...but most philosophers accept that Divine Command Theory and its offshoots are fundamentally subjective.

...Where do you live? A cave? I have literally never read a philosopher that supported divine command theory. Vox Day might, I'm not sure, but that's it. And he's not a philosopher.

If it is the former than objective morality exists independently of god and does not come from him. He cannot change what is good nor is he the source of moral truths.

This is an invalid argument. It is possible that he "cannot change what is good" and still he can be the source of moral truths.

You appear to be wholly ignorant of classical Christian teaching on this, so let me give you some new insights here. God is indeed the source of moral truths, but NOT BY DIVINE COMMAND. God is the source of moral truth by his very nature.

Let me unpack that: God creates each thing with a nature. When he creates, he makes a thing which is a partial reflection of God. That is, each thing has its form and its being insofar as it is like to God, and each thing's likeness to God is bound up with the limits of its nature. Lions reflect God's being in some ways, horses in different ways, humans in still other ways. What is good for humans is different from what is good for lions or from horses. But in each case what is good for that kind of thing is good for it due to the way its own nature models God's nature, in limited fashion. So what is good for horses is good for horses insofar as horses approach to godliness, which is different from the way humans approach to godliness.

As a result, what is good for humans is to be like God in ways that pertain to human nature. God can no more choose or command that a creature be good in some other way than to be like Him than he can choose to create a being that doesn't reflect Him in some distant fashion, for to be created is to be in some limited fashion modeled on the Creator. Thus God's own nature is the source of the "rules" or "structure" of what it means to be good as a human being. God is, indeed, the source of morality, but not because of arbitrary or capricious commands. He is the source of morality by his very nature.

This is why, for example, man's nature as rational cannot include a morality that is indifferent to truth: man is designed to learn and know truth, and morality for humans reflects that orientation. Thus truth-telling is conformed to human good. Man is social in his nature, this is (in part) why friendship is a human good, and thus loyalty is also a human virtue. God cannot "write out" of morality the human virtues of honesty and loyalty because these are two of the ways humans approaches to godliness - it would be contrary to his own nature.

If that is the case then objective morality is simply built into the universe and atheists like me can appeal to it just as easily as theists can assuming there is a way to ascertain what is good and what is bad according to these objective standards.

Yes, but you DON'T make any appeals to an objective morality that is simply built into nature. In fact, you don't seem to identify with ANY morality at all. That's part of my frustration with your nonsensical commentary - they have no substance to them, you never reference any specific morality of any sort. Go ahead, TELL US what you think is moral. All you have ever done here is tell us that Christianity is a dumb story without ever identifying something else.

In fact, most atheists find it very difficult or even impossible to find a morality built into nature. Not that it isn't there, mind you, just that they find it difficult to do so. Because, of course, since Newton and Hume most atheists are also into modern naturalism and disbelieve in teleology. And without teleology built into nature it is difficult indeed to generate a morality of any sort. See, for example, Dr. Ed Feser's commentary on the subject, with follow-up.

The underlying problem is this: Hume himself noted the difficulty of getting "ought" out of "is". It is indeed possible to do so, if you utilize final causality - purposes, intentions, and in-built orientations. If you write final causality out of your explanation of things, then it REALLY IS impossible to get an "ought" out of an "is". Noting that humans are capable of friendship doesn't make loyalty a virtue unless men are ordered to friendship in some sense. And once you allow for men to be oriented toward certain goods like friendship, then you are talking about teleology.

Classical Christianity doesn't deny morality rooted in the nature of things as they are, it adds a layer of explanation over and above that, by insisting that the morality that is rooted in nature itself has an explanation. But if you don't want to get into THAT discussion, that's OK. I am fine with focusing on the moral standards rooted in the nature of things without pushing out further into their sources. If man has a morality rooted in what man is, what kind of morality does that imply?

This is the sort of question that Plato and Aristotle tackled, and made considerable headway on: the virtues, the things that make an excellent man to be excellent, are habits of acting morally, because those actions are properly suited to what man is. Man is a rational, social animal. The sorts of things that are suited to a rational, social animal are what construct the parameters of human goodness: such things as honesty and loyalty are good ways of acting because truth and friendship are distinctly human goods.

>This is an invalid argument. It is possible that he "cannot change what is good" and still he can be the source of moral truths.

I didn't say that one follows from the other, I said that both are implied by that horn of the dilemma.

>You appear to be wholly ignorant of classical Christian teaching on this, so let me give you some new insights here. God is indeed the source of moral truths, but NOT BY DIVINE COMMAND. God is the source of moral truth by his very nature.

I am aware of this argument, and it merely pushes things back a step. If good is dependent on god's nature then child rape would be good if god's nature were different, and morality is still contingent and ultimately subjective.


>od creates each thing with a nature. When he creates, he makes a thing which is a partial reflection of God. That is, each thing has its form and its being insofar as it is like to God, and each thing's likeness to God is bound up with the limits of its nature. Lions reflect God's being in some ways, horses in different ways, humans in still other ways. What is good for humans is different from what is good for lions or from horses. But in each case what is good for that kind of thing is good for it due to the way its own nature models God's nature, in limited fashion. So what is good for horses is good for horses insofar as horses approach to godliness, which is different from the way humans approach to godliness.

This argument is idiotic. God creating things for a purpose has nothing to do with whether moral truths that come from god are objective or subjective. How well things created by god live up to his plan for them doesn't really matter in this context.


>In fact, most atheists find it very difficult or even impossible to find a morality built into nature. Not that it isn't there, mind you, just that they find it difficult to do so. Because, of course, since Newton and Hume most atheists are also into modern naturalism and disbelieve in teleology. And without teleology built into nature it is difficult indeed to generate a morality of any sort. See, for example, Dr. Ed Feser's commentary on the subject, with follow-up.

Most atheists? Can you prove this? I have read Feser by the way, and I consider him a fool.

>Yes, but you DON'T make any appeals to an objective morality that is simply built into nature. In fact, you don't seem to identify with ANY morality at all. That's part of my frustration with your nonsensical commentary - they have no substance to them, you never reference any specific morality of any sort. Go ahead, TELL US what you think is moral. All you have ever done here is tell us that Christianity is a dumb story without ever identifying something else.

I do not think that objective moral truths exist. I believe in subjective morality, which I already told you. Moral values are subjective and based on the preferences of conscious entities, they are not truths built into the fabric of the universe. To say that X is good is to say that you like or prefer X.

>...Where do you live? A cave? I have literally never read a philosopher that supported divine command theory. Vox Day might, I'm not sure, but that's it. And he's not a philosopher.

Did I say they supported it? I said they accept that it is a subjective moral theory, not that they personally subscribe. Spend more time reading the things you respond to and less time making arguments from incredulity.

That wasn't an argument. Who cares if they hold it as "fundamentally subjective" if they don't hold to it?

"I believe in subjective morality, which I already told you. Moral values are subjective and based on the preferences of conscious entities, they are not truths built into the fabric of the universe. To say that X is good is to say that you like or prefer X."

You realize their is literally no arguing with such a position -- it is just might makes right. As long as enough people get together with the same preferences and have the power to enforce their will, they will get what they want however insane or evil (I know you don't accept the meaning of those words) those preferences might be.

Why bother commenting or arguing?

And one more thing -- anyone who thinks Professor Feser is a fool is ignorant. I dare you to go to his blog and attempt to make a case for your positions -- you will be exposed as the intellectual charlatan you are:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-obligation-and-euthyphro-dilemma.html

>That wasn't an argument. Who cares if they hold it as "fundamentally subjective" if they don't hold to it?

I was trying to explain why traditional forms of theism don't really have an advantage over atheism when it comes to the "objectivity" of morality. Leaving aside the fact that many Christian thinkers do accept *some form* of divine command theory (regardless of what they call it), ordinary Christians often believe that morality comes from god and is objective due to god's "sovereignty." It's worth explaining why such ideas are flawed even if analytic philosophers that happen to be Christian understand that they are nonsense. I have never understood people that think atheists should ignore what most Christians actually believe when they attack the faith. It is important to respond and consider arguments made by Christian philosophers, but it is also important to explain why naive theist views make no sense when viewed from an analytic perspective.

>You realize their is literally no arguing with such a position -- it is just might makes right. As long as enough people get together with the same preferences and have the power to enforce their will, they will get what they want however insane or evil (I know you don't accept the meaning of those words) those preferences might be.

That's not quite correct Jeffrey. Believing that "might makes right" is itself a subjective judgement. The fact that morality is subjective doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it. I know I don't.

Dunsany: "I do not think that objective moral truths exist. I believe in subjective morality, which I already told you."

Did you read the insider account by Danusha V. Goska that I posted for you on July 21st which discusses the morality and actual behavior of liberals?

I was trying to explain why traditional forms of theism don't really have an advantage over atheism when it comes to the "objectivity" of morality.

That's like me saying "Well, some atheists think all religions are evil" then writing a long post responding to that when nobody said anything of it.

These are the examples of "reasoning" that Dunsany would have us debate with him:

Why can't our subjective beliefs and desires serve as the basis for your moral code?...

If that is the case then objective morality is simply built into the universe and atheists like me can appeal to it just as easily as theists can assuming there is a way to ascertain what is good and what is bad according to these objective standards...

I didn't say that one follows from the other, I said that both are implied by that horn of the dilemma....

I am aware of this argument, and it merely pushes things back a step. If good is dependent on god's nature then child rape would be good if god's nature were different, and morality is still contingent and ultimately subjective...

I do not think that objective moral truths exist. I believe in subjective morality, which I already told you. Moral values are subjective and based on the preferences of conscious entities, they are not truths built into the fabric of the universe. To say that X is good is to say that you like or prefer X...

This argument is idiotic. God creating things for a purpose has nothing to do with whether moral truths that come from god are objective or subjective. How well things created by god live up to his plan for them doesn't really matter in this context...

Jeff has the exact right of the matter:

You realize there is literally no arguing with such a position

Dunsany has proven over and over that he is incapable of actually debating an issue with any sort of coherence. "if god's nature were different" indeed - as if he had never heard that God is the necessary being whose nature cannot logically or metaphysically be otherwise. He might have just as well said "suppose that 'subjective' were to be changed into 'objective' and 'objective were to be changed into 'subjective', then your morality would be subjective. Hah! And I can suppose 6 impossible things before breakfast." Yes, and he can also make a word mean exactly what he WANTS it to mean and nothing else: "subjective morality," based on preference, indeed!

He is a moral cretin, presumably made so by modern education. (Unless he is a self-made "man" (intellectually), which would make him the approximate equivalent of Frankenstein's monster, only put together while Dr. Frankenstein was drunk and blindfolded, and missing a few parts.) He appears to be only able to continually profess his own taste or preference, because he is a man of pure willfulness and nothing else. He cannot seem to grasp that REALITY is not wholly subject to pure human taste and preference.

There is no debating someone who adheres to such positions by pure force of will rather than by any of the light of intellect. You can pity him, certainly. You can either care for him in his insanity, or step around him and avoid him in hopes that his spittle does not land on you. What you cannot do is make any dent in that armor of will with reason, argument, example, science, exhortation, or anything else in words.

Sadly, since this venue is all about the written word, there is nothing WE can do for the benighted guy but leave him in the Bedlam he embraces so willingly, with Drs. Withers and Frost. And, though he would protest it, pray for him.

As long as enough people get together with the same preferences and have the power to enforce their will, they will get what they want however insane or evil (I know you don't accept the meaning of those words) those preferences might be.

What you've described is the status quo. Whether the people who get together (as you say) justify their moral beliefs through personal preference or through belief in some objective moral truth, the only way that these beliefs are enforced through either laws or social mores is when enough people share the same beliefs.

You realize there is literally no arguing with such a position

I'm curious how the opposite position leaves more room for arguing... If you have one group who believe that morality comes from personal beliefs and personal decisions, and another group who believe that morality comes from divine revelation and from objective unchanging moral truths, which group leaves more ground for argument?

I'm not saying this to prove a point. I assume that you had something in mind when you wrote that; I'm just curious what you meant.

Phil,

Good comments:

(1) "Whether the people who get together (as you say) justify their moral beliefs through personal preference or through belief in some objective moral truth, the only way that these beliefs are enforced through either laws or social mores is when enough people share the same beliefs."

Well, yes and no. Certainly we will punish those who reject the law or social mores via the police power and in America that power is controlled via representative elections, mediated through our republican institutions. But people also choose to obey laws because they think laws are just -- the law is a teacher in one sense and in another, laws might not be necessary because people are moral (or morals and laws reinforce one another).

When, however, Americans enact unjust laws then we might have a situation in which people are forced to break the law and follow a 'higher law' if you will -- this was the case made for civil disobedience during the civil rights era and Christians may face their own trials in the future around laws normalizing homosexuality. Cardinal George's famous quote comes to mind:

I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.

(2) "If you have one group who believe that morality comes from personal beliefs and personal decisions, and another group who believe that morality comes from divine revelation and from objective unchanging moral truths, which group leaves more ground for argument?"

I would think this is obvious -- leaving out divine revelation for now -- that if I think objective moral truths exist I must have an argument for why they exist. Or to put it another way, I have reasons for why objective moral truths exist and I can lay out a case for those reasons. The other group simply has their feelings.

Tony,

The crazies bring out the best in you. The 4:48 PM comment is another tour de force.

Phil, I think Jeff is right. Morality is based on truths that are true and verifiable to all people - like science is based on empirical facts that are reproducible for any observer. This morality can be discussed and argued; it can have hypotheses proposed and supported by facts or shot down by counter-examples. It can be debated intelligently.

So this is where Tony stops trying to discuss the philosophical issues he raised and engages in meaningless personal attacks. I'm not surprised. Like many Christians Tony's knowledge of philosophy starts and ends with the nonsense he reads on blogs started by people committed to his cause. He has never seriously engaged with this issues or thought about the implications of his own position, and I suspect that he never will. I would not say the same thing about Lydia even though I think her views are vile.

@marcanthony

He confirmed that he does think moral values are objective because they are grounded in god, and his other post implied. It seems like he believes in exactly the sort of nonsense that I brought up.

> Morality is based on truths that are true and verifiable to all people

you should read this http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/03/is-ought-and-natures-laws

It was written by a Christian, so maybe you will actually read it before ignoring what it says.

It was written by a Christian, so maybe you will actually read it before ignoring what it says.

Hart? David Bentley Hart, with his article against natural law?

Oh Golly. Oh brother! Where to start?

First, I did read it in First Things. And the follow-up conversation. All over the place. Hart couldn't make himself clear, so he had to clarify. Then do it again. But many observers (including ones without a dog in the fight) thought he failed in his effort to clarify, and indeed many thought his argument was lacking.

We took Hart's thesis apart at Dr. Feser's blog, here and there and with this. As well as a couple of others at Feser's blog, and commentary at other places.

He has never seriously engaged with this issues

To to prove that I read and understood Hart's thesis, here is a comment made by one of Hart's staunchest supporters, with whom I argued for 4 months on Hart's article:

Tony

I would like to take a moment to thank you for your post at July 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM. For the first time in this whole Hart-Feser brouhaha, I think someone from the Feser side has finally addressed the argument put forward by the Hart side. No misunderstandings, no red herrings, no unrelated tangents: you nailed it. The comboxes on this issue over the past months have made me feel like I was beating my head against a brick wall, but, finally, the other side has been reached. I disagree with your conclusion, as you'll see in a second, but you still engaged the argument on its own terms. Bravo.

I am not making it up, that response is there in black and white in that last link I provided.

Much more importantly, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in what Hart said gives even the merest hint that he would agree that morality is subjective, based on personal preferences. He would agree with ME that morality is based on truths that are TRUE for all people, and would only disagree about the "verifiable" to all people part. Which is where he insists that revelation does its work - it verifies those self-same universal truths of morality to all people.

Tony's knowledge of philosophy starts and ends with the nonsense he reads on blogs

So, the 8 college semesters I spent studying philosophy in the 1980s, including Parmenides, Democritus, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche (and others) don't count? Darn, I guess I shouldn't have bothered. I wonder why I got A's in those classes. Must be the professors were ALL idiots too, because after all, their opinions don't matter if Dunsany thinks I am dumb.

Basically, Dunsany, you are out to lunch, yet again.

I posted Hart's article because it seemed like the sort of thing that might get you to realize your view is not obviously right. I actually disagree with Hart on most things, I thought his most recent book was absolute trash and I am never convinced by his arguments any more than I am convinced by Feser's arguments.

> Darn, I guess I shouldn't have bothered. I wonder why I got A's in those classes. Must be the professors were ALL idiots too, because after all, their opinions don't matter if Dunsany thinks I am dumb.

I went to college much more recently than you did (I hadn't been born when you were in school) so things might have changed, but I have very little faith in grades. I went to a supposedly "elite" northeastern university that shall remain nameless, and grade inflation was even more rampant than sucking up to the professors.

I actually disagree with Hart on most things, I thought his most recent book was absolute trash and I am never convinced by his arguments any more than I am convinced by Feser's arguments.

Well, THAT makes it a good article for you to refer us to. Even though he is completely wrong, the fact that he disagrees with me (thus making my argument more probable) is an excellent way of showing...Uhm...wait. How does that work again? Oh, never mind.

Now that I know you think Hart's book is trash, I almost have to go out and get it and read it. Because, after all, Hart's latest book, underpants gnomes, and thus subjective morality.

He confirmed that he does think moral values are objective because they are grounded in god...

...Which, of course, is not equivalent to "he believes in divine command theory". There are nuances in such a position you're apparently not able to grasp.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.